Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

What movie did you last watch?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

    The pursuit of happyness - My girl had tears in her eyes over about 80 % of the movie...but I also liked it! Will Smith is playing great and so is the story..sad but you know..happy end!

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      The Marine - 2006 version of Rambo/Terminator? it was cheesy at times but still watchable.

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Sleepy Hollow

        I'm not a big fan of Tim Burton, but I was pleasantly surprised. Fun movie.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Hannibal Rising: even going in with low expectations wasn't enough; just a horrible effort all around. Surprising considering how heavily advertised it was. About a 4 or 5 out of 10. There are too many flaws to point out so just don't see it.
          You Got The Tony!!!!!!

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            We are Marshall

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              I saw two movies this weekend:

              Old School was a pretty basic comedy, I expected more. Not bad though.

              Lost in Translation was very good, I didn't realize till after how immersed you became in Tokyo and I think that it did a very good job of making everything very spaced out/drunk like Bob Harris was. I enjoyed it.
              Play Mafia!
              Twitter

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                i finally got to see "scanner darkly". pretty enjoyable.

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Iron Maiden - Rock in Rio live concert dvd. Close your eyes, crank the sound, and you'll be very happy. Try to watch this and you'll have nausea and a splitting headache from the constant camera changes. Motion sickness does not create the ultimate experience.
                  You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    "The Departed"

                    I've managed to not learn the ending in all this time, other than knowing it was probably not what I would be expecting.

                    Good movie. Long, but good.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      I liked the Departed a lot. I've read that most people laughed at the ending, but I didn't. Yay for me; one more movie to enjoy I guess.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        "The Night Listener" Robin Williams.

                        Hmmmm.... I'm not sure but I think Robin Williams' character was gay.

                        Ok... I know he was gay. They beat that into our heads until it was distracting. It was pointless to the storyline unless it was to make the viewer feel Robin's character would be more sympathetic to a young man with AIDS since it affects his life and those around him more (directly and often).

                        IMHO it became distracting to the story because otherwise it had nothing to do with the story.

                        This is a thriller... in a sense... or a suspense movie... in a sense... But there are no monsters going to jump thru the window. It's a mystery that unfolds as Robin's character begins to question some things he originally accepted on their face. This leads him deeper but he never seems to get any closer to the truth. It always seems to be one reasonable explanation away but never with the black and white confirmation he's looking for.

                        I thought it was OK. I didn't think it built to the crescendo it could've had. It was one of those movies that kept my attention but in the end I felt there was probably a better movie in there that just didn't make it either to the camera or past the cutting room.

                        I wouldn't plan an evening around it, but for something to watch when there's nothing to do, you could do worse.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          THE NIGHT LISTENER is based on a true story and the guy that this happened to that wrote the book the movie was based on is gay. So it isn't so much of a plot device. I didn't feel the fact that he was gay was pounded into my head (and maybe because I knew aobut the guy going into the movie). That being said, I was really disappointed in it actually. As you said, it was supposed to be a thriller and supposed to be suspenseful ... but it never actually gets to including either. The actual story is quite shocking and compelling. Many celebrities like Armistead Maupin (who was portrayed as Gabriel Noone) were fooled by this woman. People that ranged from Fred Rogers to Keith Olbermann to Oprah spoke to this boy and befriended him. The movie wasn't terrible but it just never really got off the ground. to me, it felt more like a movie you'd find A&E making and airing. i think i put the blame on the director and editor for it being not nearly as compelling as it could have been and should have been. Here is an interview Keith Olbermann did with Maupin when the film was being released its certainly more interesting than the film was.

                          AUGUST 4, 2006 - COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN (MSNBC)

                          OLBERMANN: Had a train not been late, I never would have had the time to read the newspaper article about “the” book, but there it was, a piece about an astounding memoir of a teenage boy dying of AIDS, the victim of horrific child abuse. His spirit and optimism still intact after a brief lifetime living in a world of nothing but shattered glass. I read the book, “Between a Rock and a Hard Place” but Tony Godby Johnson in one sitting and within weeks I was Tony‘s phone pal, baseball buddy, advocate, consoler, counselor, and adopted brother. It was heart-breaking. Until I noticed one day that when Tony‘s mother or doctor came on the phone with him, none of their voices ever overlapped. One spoke then the other, then the first again. Think about it. That‘s not the way real-life conversations work.

                          And then there was the Saturday night when as the background of the frail voice of the boy supposedly down to his last t-cell, I heard laughter and car noises echoing up from the street. “Oh, I have the window open,” said a person so sick he had been permitted no visitors in a year. That‘s when I hired the private detective.

                          Our third story on the COUNTDOWN, I was not the only one whose heart lead him into the Tony Godby Johnson scam, Mr. Rogers, Oprah Winfrey, the author, Armistead Maupin all of us figured it out eventually but only Mr. Maupin figured out what to do with the fact that there was no Tony Godby Johnson, just a woman named Vicki Fraginals playing the roles of Tony and Tony‘s mom and the live-in doctor. Maupin made it into novel, “The Night Listener” and now it‘s a movie that opens today. He‘ll join me in a minute, first a clip.

                          (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

                          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi it‘s Pete Logan.
                          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was impressed by your book.
                          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it‘s really you?
                          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why wouldn‘t be it be.
                          UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I‘m sorry to cut this short. He‘s a very sick boy. He doesn‘t have very long.

                          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It must be very hard for you.
                          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I‘m worried about Pete.
                          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think it‘s possible that they‘re being a little melodramatic here? It seems so over the top.
                          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would someone do that?
                          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don‘t know. Money, maybe? To sell a book? There‘s ways to prove this.

                          (END VIDEO CLIP)

                          OLBERMANN: Joining me now, as promised. Armistead Maupin. Thanks for your time tonight, sir.

                          ARMISTEAD MAUPIN, “THE NIGHT LISTENER”: Thank Keith, nice to meet you, even this way.

                          OLBERMANN: Yeah. Is there anyway to tell anybody who didn‘t read the “Rock and a Hard Place Book” or didn‘t talked to what you and I believed was Tony Johnson, just how compelling his story was?

                          MAUPIN: Well, I think I was especially vulnerable because this kid was supposedly dying of AIDS, and was going to be dead in six months, and my partner at the time was and is HIV positive and my best friend was on the verge of dying, so I was especially compelled by the notion of this teenager who was a straight identified—a straight kid, who was very gay friendly, I‘m a gay man and it was amazing to see that he had no homophobia and there was something really charming about him on the telephone. He was a real spirit, as you know, someone you could talk to for hours and he was never depressing and always self-effacing and funny. And the story, I think, had a way of growing because of our own imaginations. If you recall, his book itself is not very graphic, but we would hear these stories from other people and I think your own imagination makes it seem—you know, builds in it that way.

                          OLBERMANN: I mentioned how it came to me that there was something wrong here. When did you realize this was not what it seemed to be?

                          MAUPIN: You know, my partner came in about six months into the conversation and talked to Vicki for the first time, he had been talking to Tony. And he spent about five minutes with her on the phone and then turned to me and said, “Don‘t you think there‘s a strange similarity in their voices” and as a matter of fact I had noticed that because on one occasion I said, “Oh hi, Tony” and she‘d said, “No, no, no, it‘s Vicki. Don‘t say that to Tony he hates being mistaken for his mom.” Well, that worked on me because I remember what it was like to be 14 and I didn‘t much like that either.

                          Yeah, then as soon as he said it could see it clearly, but had no way of proving it. And fortunately the storyteller in me took over and I was just fascinated by the sort of real-life mystery that I‘d found myself in the middle of.

                          OLBERMANN: Yeah, and me too. And just to clear it up, the mother-son relationship was supposed to be adoptive, so there was no inherited sound-alike quality there. But did you—when you figured this out, or began to figure it out, did you try to tell others about this. I mean, there was an “Associated Press” reporter who swore she had met Tony and I remember calling some of her associates at the “AP” and tell her—them, listen, I actually hired a private detective to check this out, there‘s no little boy living there, it‘s a woman. She has a history of insurance fraud and she‘s got two fat daughters and the “Associated Press” people said “No, no our reporter is never wrong.” Did you reach out to other people who were involved in this?

                          MAUPIN: Yeah, well, I spoke to the editor at Crown Books, to David Groth (ph) and said please don‘t let this go any further, because I don‘t want to be doubting a child who‘s reporting child abuse, but do you know anybody who‘s actually met Anthony Godby Johnson, and he got up and closed the door and sat back down and said “You‘re going through the same thing I went through six months ago. But I can assure you he exists and he‘s a little bit like god, you just have to believe in him.” That reporter, by the way, for the “Associated Press,” wrote me after “The Night Listener” came out, she read a review of it and I think she assumed the whole thing had been put to bed and she sort of said, “You took the courageous way. I didn‘t quit know what to do and I ended up leaving my job. I quit journalism because of it.” And I don‘t know what happened with her or exactly how she—how she was persuaded to believe this, but she was.

                          OLBERMANN: I think, in fact I think I do. The story I heard was that more than likely one of the daughters of this woman, Vicki Fraginals, was dressed up, swaddled, basically, in clothing and sort of just presented as Tony, that you could see just from the doorway. So she may have actually thought that she‘s met a little boy and it was just a large little girl who didn‘t speak. Which explains.

                          MAUPIN: Yeah, I think she had suspicions, as did we all. And of course there was that photograph that we all got sent very early on so you had a visual to go with that audio on the phone.

                          OLBERMANN: In the cathartic process of turning this into a novel, why did become something as dark as the novel was and even darker as the movie appears to be? There‘s a real kind of threaten quality to this.

                          MAUPIN: Yeah, I think I just took it and ran with it. I mean, I‘ve never said it‘s anything other than a novel. It is fiction. What Gabriel Noon does in the novel and in the film didn‘t happen in real life. But the idea, the whole thing, I was completely creeped out by it. I don‘t know about you, but once I figured out what was going on, my mind went everywhere. I couldn‘t imagine, first of all, why somebody would do this, until I started thinking about it as a pathology and that made more sense because it was quit clear that it was a 24-hour operation. She had to inhabit that child at all times given the number of people that were talking to him and had close relationships with him on a regular basis.

                          OLBERMANN: My thought by the way, was, hey, at least there‘s one less kid dying of AIDS. We can take that away from it.

                          MAUPIN: Yeah.

                          OLBERMANN: I just (INAUDIBLE) at that point. The one positive there.

                          MAUPIN: Yeah.

                          OLBERMANN: Now, Tony never asked for money and Vicki, the mother, never asked for money, but they used to talk and this doctor character used to talk about black market drugs to fight his AIDS or his bronchial problems, or his t-cell count or any of the other side things and I volunteered to pay the cost of some of these, a couple thousand bucks whatever it was. Did you get sucked into that too or did anybody else, do you know?

                          MAUPIN: I never did. I waited for that to happen, but I never did. But I know, I‘ve heard of other people who did and it was a lot more than a few thousand bucks who gave her money to take care of the kid, supposedly, in the facility somewhere. But it didn‘t happen with me. I think she had a brilliant way of adjusting to whoever she was talking to, knowing exactly how to push, you know, one thing or the other.

                          She actually, by the way, she named the character in the book. I told Tony, you know, Tony-Vicki that I was going to writing this book because I was hung up on writing it. I‘d already accepted an advance from both my British and American publishers. And I was afraid that once the book came out, then—and there really was a kid on the other end, that I would really be in a real bad situation, so I told him what I was doing and he said, well I‘m a big boy, I know what a fiction is. There‘s a lie and the truth contained in that phrase, and so she named him. She said, “I‘d like to name him Pete.”

                          OLBERMANN: Well, lastly, I‘ve always been reluctant to talk about this. I just thought OK, I found out the truth, I don‘t need to disabuse others of what they believe, but I finally decided, when I have to be a fool I‘d rather be our kind of fool than Vicki‘s kind of fool.

                          MAUPIN: Absolutely, I have no regrets whatsoever. I was acting out of human kindness and I don‘t think nobody has a reason to be ashamed for doing that.

                          OLBERMANN: Armistead Maupin the author of “The Night Listener,” now, as they say, a major motion picture. A pleasure to talk to you, sir.

                          MAUPIN: Great to talk to you, Keith.

                          OLBERMANN: Great thanks for joining us tonight.

                          MAUPIN: Thank you very much.


                          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14227900/
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            - Pan's Labyrinth

                            Don't take the kids.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Running With Scissors ... this movie desperately wanted to be like the Royal Tenenbaums mixed with American Beauty (which is odd given the benning/paltrow connection) but ultimately it was a disaster. i will say i thought it was fairly well acted, especially Benning and Alec Baldwin. but it was supposed to be a tragicomedy that only really gets around to the tragedy and substitutes bizarre behavior for comedy. ultimately i couldn't figure out why paltrow was in the film (i felt her talent was really wasted) but also the character itself seemed fairly unnecessary the way the film exists. there is probably more in the book about her character hope, but essentially she exists only to get these weird uncomfortable laughs with her cat. (D+)

                              Hollywoodland ... this film came out around the time of Black Dahlia and despite all that BD has going for it (Aaron Eckhart, James Ellroy, Brian De Palma, etc) Black Dahlia was terrible. i mention this because im not sure whether the failure of that film plays into my perspective of this one... but Hollywoodland is quite enjoyable. not a perfect film by any means, but it is more successful. ben affleck is quite good (its been a long time since i could muster that type of phrase). i think my one real problem with the film was i felt the Adrian Brody / Louis Simo was underdeveloped, more focus is on Affleck's story (which is good but you just don't care about the Simo side of things really). (B-)

                              Art School Confidential ... ghost world was a good quirky and enjoyable movie but the team of director Terry Zwigoff and writer Daniel Clowes slipped up big time with their second film. this is a mess. it starts off minimally amusing and goes just to strange and puzzling. first of all, i think it is really hard to parody something like art school that is essentially already parodying itself as an institution. also they lose focus about what is going on once the strangler storyline truly comes into the picture. i am also baffled by how they could waste malkovich, huston and jim broadbent in the same film. the nick swardson character was absolutely unnecessary as well. bad bad bad bad bad(D-)

                              Brick ... i loved this movie. joseph gordon-levitt and lukas haas star in this high school noir mystery. the dialogue is straight out of the 40s noir films or like maltese falcon set in high school. it does take a while to get into the rhythm of the film... it definitely has a bit of a david lynch feel to the film as well. i really enjoyed joseph gordon-levitt's performance and really appreciated the film. it wasn't perfect, but for a first time writer/director who made this film for around $500K (meaning this is definitely 'indie') i would definitely recommend it and it is a MUST SEE for noir enthusiasts. (A-)
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Originally posted by Dabney Prood View Post
                                - Pan's Labyrinth

                                Don't take the kids.
                                it looks like something i might enjoy, is it pretty violent or is it just plain scarry?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X